Dean Blandino's explanation

[percyhoward]

The first requirement is they have to start running after gaining control of the ball.

That's not true. The first requirement after gaining control of the ball is to touch the ground in bounds with both feet, and there is nothing about running.

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)

​

 

[percyhoward]

You're wrong "going to the ground" has to do with the receivers body lean/momentum taking them to the ground during the act of making a catch.

What part of the rule book are you reading? Post it.

 

[KJJ]

That's not true. The first requirement after gaining control of the ball is to touch the ground in bounds with both feet, and there is nothing about running.

A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
b) touches the ground in bounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)

​

Everything I've said is true and it's coming from those who have years of experience making calls.

 

[KJJ]

What part of the rule book are you reading? Post it.

That's not in the rulebook because it comes down to judgement just like the interpretation of what a "football move" is. A lot of the catch rule still comes down to judgement.

 

[percyhoward]

That's my point, friend. You have your own personal interpretation of the catch process which is not in the rule book, and your own idea about what constitutes going to the ground, which isn't in the rule book either.

 

[KJJ]

That's my point, friend. You have your own personal interpretation of the catch process which is not in the rule book, and your own idea about what constitutes going to the ground, which isn't in the rule book either.

I'm giving you the interpretation of the officials and those who created the RULE. I've heard 5 different experts (officials) break down the play frame by frame and EVERYONE of their breakdowns were virtually identical. I hate the RULE just like everyone else but I'm at peace with it because it's being officiated the same way. It's been consistent provided you understand the RULE. It comes down to understanding and accepting the RULE. I understand what they're saying during the breakdown of the play, that's how I've been able to understand the RULE. RULES are RULES whether you like them or not and most officiating calls involve a lot of judgment. They're trying to remove some of the judgement with the catch RULE by making a receiver complete a process if they're ruled "going to the ground" which is also a judgement call. You want EVERYTHING in the rulebook and it would be impossible to do that because there's still judgment involved.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm giving you the interpretation of the officials and those who created the RULE. I've heard 5 different experts (officials) break down the play frame by frame and EVERYONE of their breakdowns were virtually identical.

I'm sure they were. After all, the NFL is a very powerful organization. They weren't going to allow their top official to look like a fool without putting up a fight.

If you're really open-minded, read the "going to the ground" subsection without thinking about things like "body lean" and "momentum." (They aren't in there anyway). Read the highlighted "goes to" below as "contacts." Because believe me, that's how it was meant.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.
​

That whole section (on which Blandino claims to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (a, b, and c) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground.

That ain't about falling, it's about hitting the ground.

 

[KJJ]

I'm sure they were. After all, the NFL is a very powerful organization. They weren't going to allow their top official to look like a fool without putting up a fight.

If you're really open-minded, read the "going to the ground" subsection without thinking about things like "body lean" and "momentum." (They aren't in there anyway). Read the highlighted "goes to" below as "contacts." Because believe me, that's how it was meant.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.
​

That whole section (on which Blandino claims to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (a, b, and c) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground.

That ain't about falling, it's about hitting the ground.

The "going to the ground" part of the rule is subjective and in most cases it requires the official to use their own judgement. It only takes understanding gravity as to what will cause a receiver or anyone to go to the ground. If they're up in the air battling for the ball and their momentum is taking their body forward chances are they're going to fall to the ground once their feet land. It would be impossible to put all the many ways that could cause a receiver to go to the ground so it comes down to the judgment of the official.

Blandino was asked what do you look for to determine a receiver is "going to the ground" and he pointed to Dez's body lean and momentum taking him to the ground. He never established himself as "runner" because by the time he had full control of the ball he was falling to the ground. Taking steps why battling for the ball to try and gain control isn't establishing yourself as a "runner."

 

[LandryFan]

I'm sure they were. After all, the NFL is a very powerful organization. They weren't going to allow their top official to look like a fool without putting up a fight.

If you're really open-minded, read the "going to the ground" subsection without thinking about things like "body lean" and "momentum." (They aren't in there anyway). Read the highlighted "goes to" below as "contacts." Because believe me, that's how it was meant.

If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete.
​

That whole section (on which Blandino claims to base his overturn) doesn't even apply unless the catch process (a, b, and c) wasn't completed, and even then, is only concerned with what happens when the player hits the ground.

That ain't about falling, it's about hitting the ground.

God bless you Percyhoward. You're a much more patient man than me. Your explanations and posting of the actual rule in the rule book are exactly spot on. Blandino's interpretation and explanation was concocted merely to cover his *** for overturning a call in which he invoked his "judgment" (and I use that term loosely in his case) over indisputable evidence. There's far more visual evidence that Dez established himself as a runner than there is that he was going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. Blandino has repeatedly lied to cover his *** so all he can do is continue to lie. He repeated his lies so often that many just started repeating him. People should focus on whether there was indisputable evidence for him to overturn the call. If they HONESTLY answer that question, the answer will be "NO". When he, by his own admission, used his judgment to overturn the call he said in effect that he didn't have indisputable evidence so he chose to use his own judgment, instead. That violates a very basic principle in using replay: don't overturn the call on the field unless you have INDISPUTABLE visual evidence to do it. Judgment is, by it's very nature, disputable.

 

[Gator88]

God bless you Percyhoward. You're a much more patient man than me. Your explanations and posting of the actual rule in the rule book are exactly spot on. Blandino's interpretation and explanation was concocted merely to cover his *** for overturning a call in which he invoked his "judgment" (and I use that term loosely in his case) over indisputable evidence. There's far more visual evidence that Dez established himself as a runner than there is that he was going to the ground in the act of catching the ball. Blandino has repeatedly lied to cover his *** so all he can do is continue to lie. He repeated his lies so often that many just started repeating him. People should focus on whether there was indisputable evidence for him to overturn the call. If they HONESTLY answer that question, the answer will be "NO". When he, by his own admission, used his judgment to overturn the call he said in effect that he didn't have indisputable evidence so he chose to use his own judgment, instead. That violates a very basic principle in using replay: don't overturn the call on the field unless you have INDISPUTABLE visual evidence to do it. Judgment is, by it's very nature, disputable.

The thing that bugs me most about the overturn is that in the first half a straightforward pass for GB that fairly clearly hit the ground in all but 1 angle was ruled complete, yet they didn't overturn it due to it not being indisputable. Later in the same game with that precedent established, they overturned this call which was far from indisputable. Anybody defending this call talks about Dez going to the ground making the catch, and then how that was a judgment call. Even ignoring every other argument, aren't judgment calls pretty much by definition disputable?

 

[LandryFan]

The thing that bugs me most about the overturn is that in the first half a straightforward pass for GB that fairly clearly hit the ground in all but 1 angle was ruled complete, yet they didn't overturn it due to it not being indisputable. Later in the same game with that precedent established, they overturned this call which was far from indisputable. Anybody defending this call talks about Dez going to the ground making the catch, and then how that was a judgment call. Even ignoring every other argument, aren't judgment calls pretty much by definition disputable?

You're exactly right!

 

[percyhoward]

Judgment is, by it's very nature, disputable.

Exactly, and the rules try to limit that. The more you can minimize the amount of judgment necessary, the easier the call is for officials to make and everybody else to understand. Look how Rule 3-2-7 has changed over the last three years, all in relation to officials' judgment. (These are the requirements for becoming a runner. A "runner" is simply an offensive player in possession of a live ball.)

2014
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.

2015
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

2016
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the
ground in bounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
​

In 2014, officials already knew that things like "tucking the ball away" and "taking additional steps" were examples of acts common to the game (football moves). They could use their eyes and look for such things without much judgment involved. In 2015, those observable acts were removed from the rule (an action obviously led by Blandino), creating a situation in which judgment would play a huge role in these calls. The situation only lasted one year. In 2016, the observable requirements were put back into the rule (an action obviously not favored by Blandino), again minimizing the amount of officials' judgment needed to make the call, and going so far as to spell it out with several examples of acts common to the game.

There is always going to be some amount of judgment involved, but for one year that amount was needlessly exaggerated, because, as you said, somebody was trying to cover his ***. Under the 2014 rule, Dez's catch should have stood. The 2015 rule tried to erase that. Then the authors of the 2016 rule hit Blandino over the head with the fact that it should have stood.

 

[percyhoward]

Blandino was asked what do you look for to determine a receiver is "going to the ground" and he pointed to Dez's body lean and momentum taking him to the ground. He never established himself as "runner" because by the time he had full control of the ball he was falling to the ground.

A "runner" is simply an offensive player in possession of a live ball. It has nothing to do body position. You can become a runner while falling (like Dez did), and in fact while lying on the ground if you've just recovered the ball and haven't been touched. The entire idea of having to be "upright" is Blandino's misinterpretation, either deliberate or otherwise.

The requirements for becoming a runner in 2014:

"A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game."

You're thinking that those requirements don't apply when the player is falling, but that section only applies "when a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." A "runner," by definition, has already completed the catch process. Dez went to the ground as a runner, not as a receiver. So, not "in the act of catching a pass."

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Exactly, and the rules try to limit that. The more you can minimize the amount of judgment necessary, the easier the call is for officials to make and everybody else to understand. Look how Rule 3-2-7 has changed over the last three years, all in relation to officials' judgment. (These are the requirements for becoming a runner. A "runner" is simply an offensive player in possession of a live ball.)

2014
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game.

2015
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and then maintain control of the ball until he has clearly become a runner. A player becomes a runner when he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent.

2016
A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the
ground in bounds, and then maintain control of the ball long enough to become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps.
​

In 2014, officials already knew that things like "tucking the ball away" and "taking additional steps" were examples of acts common to the game (football moves). They could use their eyes and look for such things without much judgment involved. In 2015, those observable acts were removed from the rule (an action obviously led by Blandino), creating a situation in which judgment would play a huge role in these calls. The situation only lasted one year. In 2016, the observable requirements were put back into the rule (an action obviously not favored by Blandino), again minimizing the amount of officials' judgment needed to make the call, and going so far as to spell it out with several examples of acts common to the game.

There is always going to be some amount of judgment involved, but for one year that amount was needlessly exaggerated, because, as you said, somebody was trying to cover his ***. Under the 2014 rule, Dez's catch should have stood. The 2015 rule tried to erase that. Then the authors of the 2016 rule hit Blandino over the head with the fact that it should have stood.

My lasting memory of that ballgame is being in a large sports bar in which Packers fans were in the majority - a destination place for them. It is a boisterous, friendly establishment.

When the play occurred and after the initial replays, not a single person - not one - reacted by saying the catch might be overturned. Not one. When the play was challenged, hardly anyone seemed to pay much attention.

Then the overturn... seconds of stunned silence, then loud cheers from the Packers fans. But there is no doubt they were as stunned as the Cowboys fans.

Of course Dez Bryant caught the football. His only mistake was in not merely curling up and giving up without trying to score. It is what I hate most about the NFL foolishness - it creates a disincentive for a great athlete to complete a great play.

I've moved on. Calls go this way and that. But I will never convinced that anyone who ever played a serious down of football truly believes that it wasn't a catch. It was a magnificent play. It should be remembered as one of the outstanding plays in Cowboys history.

Instead it is chopped to bit and examined like a lab specimen. The NFL is the loser.

 

[percyhoward]

Of course Dez Bryant caught the football. His only mistake was in not merely curling up and giving up without trying to score. It is what I hate most about the NFL foolishness - it creates a disincentive for a great athlete to complete a great play.

It's really just Blandino. With the exception of the one season without the football move (2015), the NFL evidently recognizes that things like stretching and reaching for that extra yard are acts that prove the catch has been made. Things for which players should obviously be rewarded and not punished.

What's funny is, when Blandino was asked what advice he'd give Dez about making sure he completed the catch process, he said, "I'd tell him to just hold on to the ball next time and not try to..." He couldn't finish his sentence, because anything he said would have been a football move.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

It's really just Blandino. With the exception of the one season without the football move (2015), the NFL evidently recognizes that things like stretching and reaching for that extra yard are acts that prove the catch has been made. Things for which players should obviously be rewarded and not punished.

What's funny is, when Blandino was asked what advice he'd give Dez about making sure he completed the catch process, he said, "I'd tell him to just hold on to the ball next time and not try to..." He couldn't finish his sentence, because anything he said would have been a football move.

Agree. And because he caught himself in time not to say "make a great play" or something similar. Now how would that have sounded?

 

[KJJ]

A "runner" is simply an offensive player in possession of a live ball. It has nothing to do body position. You can become a runner while falling (like Dez did), and in fact while lying on the ground if you've just recovered the ball and haven't been touched. The entire idea of having to be "upright" is Blandino's misinterpretation, either deliberate or otherwise.

The requirements for becoming a runner in 2014:

"A player must have complete control of the ball and have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform any act common to the game."

You're thinking that those requirements don't apply when the player is falling, but that section only applies "when a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass." A "runner," by definition, has already completed the catch process. Dez went to the ground as a runner, not as a receiver. So, not "in the act of catching a pass."

I'm thinking any of that, you clearly don't understand the RULE. Dez was "going to the ground" and didn't complete the process of making a catch and every official expert who broke down the play agreed with the overturn as did the league that confirmed it was the correct call.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm thinking any of that, you clearly don't understand the RULE. Dez was "going to the ground" and didn't complete the process of making a catch and every official expert who broke down the play agreed with the overturn as did the league that confirmed it was the correct call.

The fact that the football move was put back into the rule book tells you what most officials, players, and coaches thought about Blandino's overturn.

"When a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass" means just that. It doesn't mean falling after you've already completed the catch process. It means contacting the ground without having completed it.

 

[KJJ]

The fact that the football move was put back into the rule book tells you what most officials, players, and coaches thought about Blandino's overturn.

"When a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass" means just that. It doesn't mean falling after you've already completed the catch process. It means contacting the ground without having completed it.

They put the "football move" back in the rulebook but do they explain what a "football move" is? A "football move" comes down to judgement just like a receiver "going to the ground" or when a receiver gains full control of the ball. A "football move" being put back in the rulebook had nothing to do with what anyone thought of the overturn and if you think it did, provide an article that backs it up. When a receiver is ruled "going to the ground" and begins to fall immediately after gaining full control of the ball they can't become a "runner" or complete a "football move" according to how this type of play continues to be officiated. The Julius Thomas and Larry Fitzgerald play point to what the league considers a "football move." When a receiver catches the ball, has full control and turns their body up field and begins to run they've become a "runner" and have completed a "football move." If the Dez overturn was incorrect the league would have admitted it and would have made changes to the RULE.

The league admitted the PI called on Benny Barnes in the SB was a bad call and immediately made a rule change implementing the incidental contact rule. The catch RULE continues to be officiated the same exact way it was 2 years ago despite the controversy over the Dez ruling. There's judgement involved in every ruling and what's considered a "football move" isn't going to be in the rulebook, that will come down to the judgement of the official. The catch RULE has many confused, it certainly has you confused and everyone hates the RULE including me but it's a RULE and a lot of it comes down to judgement.

If you want to continue to act like you know more than the league and the experts who are paid to make the calls, go ahead and make yourself look silly but I haven't heard one person who gets paid to talk football have the criticisms of Blandino and the league that you've been spewing here for the past 2 years. There's been many who are very candid and outspoken who've weighed in on the catch RULE and I haven't heard a single one of them say the things you're saying. They have criticisms for the RULE but everyone who has an ounce of objectivity and fully understands the RULE agrees that the play was ruled correctly under the RULE. Percy, instead of arguing how about providing a link to someone credible who isn't an armchair Cowboys HOMER who shares some of your views.

 

[KJJ]

It's really just Blandino.

This is all about Blandino for you and if he was as incompetent as you and a few others try to spin, he still wouldn't have his job. You're making a big deal of some of his explanations of the play and why he said this and why he said that or why he didn't say this or why he didn't say that. According to you he's just trying to cover his butt. Where is anyone saying all of that but you and FANS here? Can you provide a comment from anyone who's credible, that isn't some Cowboys homer on a FAN board saying any of what you're spinning?